Klinsmann: The most divisive figure in US Soccer history

Image: Getty

The title of this blog should make it clear. Klinsmann is and has been quite a divisive figure for the sport of soccer in the United States. His hiring came as no surprise in mid 2011 when Bob Bradley was let go after a disastrous showing in the Gold Cup. Klinsmann would remake Team USA and would give it the world presence it deserved.

Klinsmann's tenure was rocky at first, with 3 losses and 1 tie in the first 4 games. After that came great showings in friendlies versus Italy, Mexico, and Slovenia, interspersed with lackluster performances in the beginning of the CONCACAF qualifying rounds.

But Klinsmann pushed the envelope of what could be achieved. He got the most out of Altidore, and introduced and reintroduced players like Geoff Cameron, Mix Diskerud, John Brooks, DeAndre Yedlin, Julian Green and Joe Corona. He set a record for the USMNT in consecutive wins at 12, won the Gold Cup 2013, and delivered the U.S. to Brazil 2014.

Up until the pre-World Cup friendlies, most things could be forgiven. And yet, there were fissures in his relationship with some of the players and, especially, with MLS.

It started in August 2013 when Clint Dempsey made a surprise move to the Seattle Sounders. Klinsmann was not happy that his captain would no longer be playing in Europe. Michael Bradley's move to Toronto FC in January made things worse. Klinsmann was very clear in his disappointment. It was not competitive enough in MLS and their form would suffer.

What really broke things for him with many fans was his exclusion of Landon Donovan from the World Cup team. Many, myself included, thought the decision would haunt him at the tournament. In a way, it did. Altidore's absence due to injury after the first game and an ineffective Brad Davis stick out as reasons the best player the U.S. has ever produced should have been a part of that squad.

But Klinsmann's recent remarks about more players needing to be in Europe and MLS not being enough drew the ire of one Don Garber. Garber was rightly insulated by the coach's words on player development. 

But what is the real truth behind Klinsmann's divisive nature? Just ask the fans. Some argue that MLS is great, should be supported and is getting more and more impressive every year. The crowds in Portland and Seattle make this point clear.

And then there is a vocal minority that sustains that the only worthwhile soccer exists in Europe, that Klinsmann is absolutely correct and that Michael Bradley needs to go back to Europe. I heard this from a soccer fan in small town Florida: Klinsmann is right, MLS is not good enough, and, surprisingly, Landon Donovan isn't as good because he never played abroad. I suggested that he look at the statistics. Donovan has scored more goals than anyone else for the USMNT.

So there it is. Surely, if you are a soccer fan in the U.S. then you fall under one of those two categories. You side with Klinsmann or you don't. Divisive indeed.

Is 24 teams too much for MLS?

Photo credit: MLS

 

Yesterday American soccer fans received an interesting bit of information about the future of the game in this country: Major League Soccer was looking to add 4 more teams to the league by the year 2020. Is this a good idea?

Let's think back to the year 1981. The league in which Pele and Beckenbaur played expanded to 24 teams in 1979. After 3 years with an expanded field of teams at 24, the North American Soccer League (NASL) contracted to 21 teams, then 14, 12 and finally to 9 in 1984. After that, the league folded and pieces of soccer were played in smaller venues with very little attention by most of the population.

The reason NASL failed was mostly due to the superclub Cosmos earning most of the attendance and poor planning in the expansion to new venues that weren't carefully analyzed for potential followers of the sport, a lack of the necessary funds, stadiums and coverage. Very few teams made it on the air and Americans lost interest in what was always considered a fringe sport.

Is all of this true today? No. But all the pieces aren't there yet either. Early in the 2000s, both teams in Florida (Tampa and Miami) folded and the league remained at 10 teams until the entrance of Real Salt Lake and Chivas USA in 2005. To this day, teams like Columbus, New England, Chivas and Dallas trail the league in attendance and attention, even when they are playing well. And even though some may argue for better management, these clubs should show more progress off the pitch in order to warrant an increase in the number of teams in the league.

There are success stories for sure. Kansas City has seen a tremendous resurgence with new leadership, a new stadium and great player development. Houston's BBVA stadium also allowed for the team to continue with its strong attendance numbers. Then there is Cascadia with Seattle and Portland's sellout crowds for every game. Soccer never left those cities and is here to stay for the long term.

Television coverage is also at an all-time high with the addition of NBC Sports Network and continuing coverage from ESPN and Univision. It is still rare, however, to see matches in non-cable networks like other sports enjoy, although national team coverage has grown through FOX and NBC. This, perhaps, is the next big thing the league has to do. Right now, realistically, this is not financially suitable for most networks due to the reach and requirement of other competing sports. 

If teams such as Orlando and markets like Miami or Baltimore are able to get enough ground support then this could work out, especially if soccer specific stadiums are added. This, most of all, is the key economic component, for rental of bigger football or baseball stadiums drain capital from ownership.

There is also a question of players. Can the US produce good, quality individuals? It can but with a good reserve league and a full suite of academies at all levels for all teams. College soccer can only do so much. Foreign stars are also difficult to acquire in their prime while the league fails at international tournaments and most stars want to be in New York or LA, something akin to what occurred with the NASL. These are cosmetic, societal problems to deal with that make an addition of 24 teams more complicated.

Ultimately, if the concerns above can be addressed properly and in a timely manner, increasing the field of teams to 24 could work to enhance the sport in America and also to increase player quality and perhaps propel the national team to greater heights. Truthfully, the best course of action would be to enact a promotion/relegation procedure to the league, but this remains economically unfeasible for at least a couple of decades.

New York's second MLS team arrives

Photo credit: MLS

New York City FC will be MLS's 20th, and most expensive franchise. After 17 years of trying, the league finally achieved their goal: a second team in the New York metro area. Instead of dwelling on details better covered in other pages, I will instead devote this post to the significance of the club and what it may mean for the league and players in this country.

The New York area is home to around 19 million people. Just driving through there you get a sense of the enormity of the population, not to mention its worldly inhabitants. You can hear a dozen languages at every street corner. Thus, New York acquired multiple teams in every sport, including big names like the Giants and Jets in American football and the Yankees and Mets in Major League Baseball. So why should soccer be any different?

At one point it was thought that the New York Cosmos would come back to the big scene. What with the inclusion of Pele as a backer and managing by Giovanni Savarese and Carlos Llamosa. But Dom Garber and MLS directives were very good at keeping the secret about who would build the team, what it's brand would be and where they would play.

Enter Manchester City and the New York Yankees. Suddenly a big name in soccer and a major brand in world sport enter the scene and establish the team. Significant, because although other squads have "training" sessions with big teams (Real Madrid with Real Salt Lake), and Chivas Guadalajara might consider Goats USA to be their satellite team, adding a European squad and the Yankees is much more impressive. The cost alone, at $100 million, benefits the league and players and sets the stage for even more greatness in the American soccer scene.

So how do we take this latest step in MLS? The league has proven that it has what it takes to build new teams and followers. One must only look at the Pacific Northwest, the Canadian teams, the new stadiums being built and the crop of homegrown players and big name stars. A second New York team adds a subway derby, a cross-town rivalry better than Chivas-Galaxy ever was. In fact, Chivas might re-brand and/or move out of the city. In reality, capitalizing on the Mexican population and the biggest brand in Liga MX wasn't enough to maintain attention or build a bigger fan base. New York FC must learn from this. They should have their own stadium and bring big name players. And maybe, just maybe, Red Bull Arena and the NYCFC stadium might sell out every match the way the Sounders and Timbers do.

Toronto FC streamers

Okay, this being an all-about-soccer website I just couldn't keep my mouth shut about this. Apparently, recent comments from ESPN's Michael Wilbon on the streamers thrown by fans in the TFC-NYRB game in which he thoroughly trashed the MLS for allowing such behavior raised more than one eyebrow in the MLS community. None other than commissioner Don Garber refuted Wilbon's comments in his blog on the MLS website and divulged his position on this type of occurrence is a unique phenomenon of the sport and one that is repeated all over the world. He also says that it's "one of our points of difference and part of what will drive our future success. There are plenty of sports leagues in the U.S. and we are not trying to offer the same in-stadium experience. We need to embrace the passion and electricity that makes soccer the world's most popular sport."
Steve Goff updated on the interchange with Wilbon's rebuttal: "Having said that, ANYTHING that interferes with the actual competition is bad. It's just awful. DON'T UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES screw around with the competition. That's not to be interactive, it's not to be influenced by anything and anybody that's not in a uniform or striped jersey on the field. Nothing and nobody is going to change my opinion on that. Ever."
I must say I agree with Goff and Garber and most other true soccer fans out there. Streamers and raucous fans running up and down the bleachers is part of the spectacle of the beautiful game. It is still present in some of the more highly regarded leagues in the world: Argentina, Mexico, Italy, etc. I haven't seen many streamers in the EPL but hooliganism in the late 80s was partly to blame for a much more subdued game-time experience that we see today (compared to the streamers, flares and confetti in South American leagues). There is always a question of safety but as one that has experienced full-fledged soccer in a South American venue, you choose where you sit and typically if you choose to sit in raucous areas you tend to be a raucous fan. To each his own. I was happy in my confy seat next to ardent fans that shouted and booed without using more physically-involved demonstrations. I paid more, yes. But that's why there are supporter's groups and sections in the stadiums.
I'm including video of a typical futbol game in Argentina with the beloved Xeneizes. Atmosphere, people. Boca brings it. TFC has it. Let's have fun with it. In all my years going to sports events I never saw a more dedicated group of fans than those in a Ecuador clasico: Barcelona - Emelec. Not even the [american] football match between Florida and LSU could match it ...just as loud, yes.... but where's the pyrotechnics?
I love my futbol. Bring on the streamers.